You said it right, I guess it is an attempt at art, and all I really did, after all, was a shout out to the world.

Hmmm, so I was really convincing on selling you this idea?

Hi. Want to share this video. It's an intro opening cutscene for a game I'm making.

As a follow-up,

Could we already be immortal, choosing to live dangerously as mortals?

There could be a danger of boredom when immortal.


:)


:)

I disagree. Your second paragraph doesn't support your conclusion in the first paragraph, and it actually seems to undermine or even contradict it. A pattern in a painting... so it's in the object. If the observer can't recognise the pattern... so it's being there is independent of recognition.

And, as a counter argument, if I were to order pebbles in a pattern, like the spelling of my name, for example, then, provided the pattern was not disrupted, it would remain, even if no one was there to recognise it as such. That's both intuitive and probable.

To have order, there must obviously be order, but it doesn't have to be recognised. And to recognise order, one must recognise the patterns. — Sapientia

It is only so as you describe, if you consider Consciousness something different from the Universe. I can't give you any proof or valid argument to defend my position. I guess it is a matter of believing. Just like you happen to believe your part, with all the logical foundation of your arguments.

We humans have reason, and by using reason we top the argument to our favor when confrontation with someone who base his arguments in emotion / faith. Obviously, the game is "rigged" from the start. In argument the game is logic and not emotion. But humans are not only defined by logic. If that would be so there would be no mystery. We are also creatures of emotions and that is kind of illogic in terms of subjectivity.

Of course I contradict myself. All is about contradictions. You happen to believe there is order independently of the observer. I happen to believe there is order only when the observer observes it.

I would just add, that to have order, one has to recognize the patterns.

For instance someone trained to observe a certain pattern in a painting, will recognize order and it will make sense for the observer. If the observer can't recognize the pattern, the observer wont recognize order.

It is not only one-way (God, the Mystery, Universe) it is more like a two-way channel where the observer has a decisive part in order (just like being God, the Mystery, Universe).

I find it by studying sciences like Sociology and Politology.
No. I would say that some people uncritically assume this, others don't assume this and are critical. And there even might be another group that I'm not aware of...

In our human nature, for instance.

Per Nature.
We are also Nature, and what we think, maybe is Nature thinking about itself, trying to come up with another new thing. Creating something for itself, maybe.

You are right. Mental events, abstractions.

First, there is a phenomenon. That phenomenon might be a concept from where another concept arrises. People don't create concepts out of nothing. There has to be perception and that comes from the own sense of identity, that comes from that which I am not.

But as I said in the previous post, there is always an "opposing force". Not only in physics, but also in the construction of the metaphysic, ideas, etc..

Relatively soon I believe, we humans are going to enter another paradigm, where we are going to use the superposition property of quantum mechanics for new generation of computers. What we use now is the binary system, that reflects the paradigm of the mental frame. It is or it is not, no uncertainty there.

The quantum computer will use the qubit. We wont understand how this is possible, but will be empiricaly acknowledged and it will indeed be useful. For who might be interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXheG7TDtGA

I think this is relevant to the discussion of infinty, zero, and both "at the same time" (no time - as if there is time, they can't phenomenologically be both).

To understand a concept we have to know what it is and what it is not.

My statement is a concept. It itself can't stand alone if nobody questions it. If no one questioned it (inclusive myself), a discussion would simply not exist, therefore no concept to discuss. No discussion with other people and no discussion inside my own mind with myself.

Why is it possible me to be able to question this way inside my mind with myself?
It comes with the consensus reality. We as humans question it fantasizing about a potential for dream / illusion. Therefore we have a concept for reality. If we wouldn't be suspicious about the possibility of illusion / dream there would be no concept for reality. Dreaming, that makes us suspicious when we wake up sometimes remembering it, makes us self-conscious in the waking life. Dreaming is a natural practice for self-consciousness.

For myself to have an identity, there has to be others (not necessarily human),
for reality, there has to be dream,
for night, there has to be day,
for wakefulness, there has to be sleep.
for the concept of concept, there has to be concept of no-concept.

But all this is just so in the antropospheric dimension (and not so).
The all at once, ceases time. It is the infinite zero, the all encompassing paradox.

Samuel, I share the exact same views as yours. I understood perfectly everything you said. It is uncanny when two minds that embrace the paradox cross (virtual) paths.

Zero and Infinity are impossible because they can't stand alone. Infinity has to contain everything including the concept of nothing, and nothing could just be an infinitesimal that has infinite numbers. But of course this is just mindgames and mean nothing at all. Actually it means something, it means preference.

Everyone has its own preference, be it god, a computer simulation or other fancy option. So it doesn't really matter, and that is why it is everything at the same time. How can Infinity express itself and persist? By each one of us having different opinions (that is, preferences). How do I know this? By the patterns in everything that mirror the eternal alpha.

If the Universe is infinite, then I am its center. So are you, therefore let us believe everything.
If the Universe is not infinite, lets make it.

Well put!

I understand and I too am biased in certain worldviews (taoism and agnosticism). But I wonder why we instinctively or not, tend to be partial. Why is it that we cannot care less about this or that? Because caring equally about everything would be an impossible feat?

The explanation I came up with is that by confining appreciation to certain aspects that life experience gives, we can relate to alikes. This is probably better than no tight relation with any human, in the case if we would be homogeneous in terms of caring about every ideology, and so every person equally, diluting our own attention for tight and meaningful relationship.

Right now I see a group of capoeira practicioners in the garden. It is a group with specific characteristics. And it seems to me that meaning for each one of them is increased when they share their own identity with each other, because they can see their own reflection on his and her friend that is practicing too.

Thank you for your comments I'm enjoying reading :) we have derailed a bit the initial question, my bad. I ask too many questions all at once ahahah. No problem...

The last paragraph is a nice consequence of sharing commentaries, I agree.

But for philosophical argument I would like to go to your second paragraph, "reflect reality more effectively". If absolute truth is ellusive (mythical bird), isn't every opinion just subjective and relative. If the absolute truth is unfathomable, like infinitely distant, doesn't any truth get equally distant to the absolute?

So why bother, even if truth is backed by fact. Meaning is in the end, also only subjective.

I'm not an Astrophysic or theoretical physic, but from what I understand, the laws of physics we know nowadays don't apply in the initial singularity of the bigbang. Applying the quantum mechanics knowledge and unifying it to the general relativity gives an equation with an impossible result, like 0=infinite. I saw it in a Michiu Kaku documentary that I tried but cannot find.

Also, why do we expect that logic can explain everything? I see logic just as another instrument to perceive the things around us. Might be other mechanisms that Nature might evolve in 100 million years to perceive the Universe. Who Knows?

I concur, and if I may add something more. Discussing in forums is entertaining. Hmm, maybe the absolute truth and reality is.. entertainment. Nothing really serious to take from here as this is all a make-believe. Who knows?

In relation to the big bang, everything is possible. I would say every hipotesis is correct, because the singularity is a mathematicaly impossibility. So the tool to perceive the universe we call reason, has no place here. So let us fantasize awayyyyyyy....

No one can say for certain if this or that person isn't feeling passion relative to someone or something, because it is something so subjective and elusive to be identified by someone else that is not the self.

If someone says he is passionate for math, I take it for what it is...

So what makes these debates we have on forums of any value besides exposing our past experiences in indirect forms by talking about our opinions (or better said, preferences)?

Where is the absolute truth?

I wouldn't say it is a duty, but more a necessity from each members point of view. The society to be integral and cohesive must have its member minimaly convergent to each other.

It could be that because we see each member converging in terms of general preferences (A.K.A culture) each one of us can fell pressured to do the same.

Don't forget about boredom.
It is not only about the intelect (true knowledge) but also about novelity and emotions.
Why is novelity important? Because change is the eternal self-reflection.

When I fast for a day or two, and then get to a table with plenty of food and finally allow myself to eat, the first dish tastes as absolut bliss. The second is good too. The third is pushing the limit and doesn't taste so good anymore. The forth is a sacrifice, and so on.

If I keep on doing that I will eventually get sick and vomit. Even with the first dish my body needs to clean itself. That is why I go to the bathroom to sh*t and p*ss. That is an ugly and sad circunstance that I don't like to share with others. What I do like to share with others is a good dinner or lunch time between friends.

Describing what happiness is, in my point of view, is like this physiological phenomenon. When we gladly eat after an extreme situation, it tastes the best. The body necessarily has to clean itself, purify itself, to make space, so that I can eat again. When I go to the bathroom it symbolizes the saddnes that can invade us even if we're doing the thing we used to love most. That certain activity might have just deteriorated because our psych must go to the "bathroom", it itself goes to a phase of suffering. But that is OK, because it will make space for more little happy moments down the road. Realizing this is Happiness (hence the capital H). Expecting saddness to come when one is happy, and expecting happiness to come when one is sad, is wise.

As a footnote, why does suffering exist? To prevent that worst things happen, just like if I don't sh*t, I get very sick.

Is happiness a zero-sum game? No.
Is Happiness a zero-sum game? Yes.

Good post. I've been lurcking around some time but you made it worth for me to post ahah..

My interpretation for the nonduality is that it's a perpetual contradiction and thus we perceive with our minds, that has inherent limits, the duality of being and also concepts like infinite.

I am biased in this because I like Taoism and I define myself and what surrounds me by Taoist principles.

Picture this:

..I have nothing. When I have nothing, I have something.
With Duality, I have Time. With Time comes Infinity.
Infinity is in All. Infinity is Divinity.
So is One. One is All. All is None...
(All and None at the same time I find no name)

Hence the Tao is the unfathomable mystery.

When you join every object, particle, energy, concept, idea into one closed group.. everything. To define this group, be it infinite in content it has to be infinite in size. But what is outside its frontier, forever far? Might it be nothing? But if it is nothing then the group hasn't everything, so we put nothing there too. This is the unspeakable paradox, that leads to the conservation of infinity.. Also, if you put nothing in the group then there is nothing for everything to compare to. There are no boundaries, but our senses make them (again, paradox, conservation of infinity).

Answers:
1- Yes and no at the same time.
2- Yes and no at the same time.